About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
to really listen to what mr. romney said about this economy. if you are concerned about poverty, do you know that the number one group tracked in poverty is single thing all households -- single female soul? you need to look at stuff that the conservatives are saying because they care about the portrait they don't want people trapped in poverty. they know what small businesses, which employs 60-70% of the citizens and in this country, taxed more. if you tax small business, they are not going to hire. i don't know how you don't figure out what mr. romney so eloquently said in that debate. talking about politics of the 1% or the 47%, conservatives want the best for all folks, and yes, we mean thewe don't want them trapped in poverty. we want them married, paying their taxes -- host: we will get katrina vanden heuvel's response. guest: yeah. listen, if marriage will promote the well-being of the couple, children, great. but in my mind, it is and not just that. that is too simplistic. it is part of the equation. without good jobs, without ensuring that workers have rights and a time -- at the ti
, there are really to risks and here, the obvious risk to the economy and the short-term -- and in the short term, cbo said that if all of this item good demand comes out of this economy, then we will have a mild recession in the first part of 2013, but would be back in recovery by the second half of 2013. but a recession on top of where we are already certainly would not be good the even bigger risk is the risk to the economy long term if we continue to kick the can down road and do nothing about our fiscal problems. how do we think about these two things? there is an interesting report that came out several months ago from the carlyle group. i just want to briefly read out what it has concluded. every analyst would have a grand bargain that replaces the cliff with a credible alternative the faces in a reduction over a time frame of years. but in negotiated settlement failed to realize the lame duck. those -- the most likely alternative may be a simple extension of fiscal policy. while such an extension would include the near-term growth prospects, it would also relieve the pressure to substanti
system? >> i think that is an important question, especially for our economy. i want to point out one thing. she posed for sequestration and now says it will not happen. can you imagine that kind of leadership? she goes for the fiscal cliff and now she says it will not happen. let's talk about education. this is the problem i see. we have a department of education in washington. they have 3500 employees that make over $100,000 a year. they are dictating to the school district how to do their jobs. i think that is a shame and it is wrong. i am not talking about closing down the department of education. i have never said that and never will. can we reduce the size of that department of education and get that money down to the school district? i believe the best education for children in nevada comes between parents, teachers, and principles. -- principals. those are who should be making the decisions. >> if i could quickly comment. my opponent mentioned my vote on sequestration. just a few questions ago, he said he voted to end medicare by turning it over to private insurance companies
economy has not seen disruptions like some years ago. why? 1989, now each year china has many law school students. that is faster than united states, for better or for worse. [laughter] their commercializing the media. none of them existed in 1989 in china. this provided a stabilizing force for a peaceful transition. the party needs to transform itself before it is too late. there is a serious discussion among social groups talking about legitimacy of the chinese communist party. how could it be possible? because his ambition will never stop. that is an important lesson. this is a critical moment china is experiencing at this conjunction of history. so, in a way, to answer your question, the leadership, in many ways they also sense the of the vulnerability. but it is not clear whether they will really transform the party because it is a very complicated process. there are ethnic issues. again, all of these issues will resurge, plus, the economy, slowed down. that as a result of the political problems and a further revealed the fundamental problems in the system, monopoly, corruption, etc
collective bargaining. >> i like that one. , we talk about that new small business economy, but african- americans, our economy is not a mom and pop, it is a mom or pop. we need to make sure it is addressing the mom and or pops our communities. , hate speech and its relationship to hate crimes will not be discussed. it will not be discussed even though we are losing a lot of people right and left, because of the fact in fringes to some on the first amendment. even the president the other day went around the whole thing in terms of the muslim film. president saying something like that. they will not address this. >> kennedy said what can you do free country. you will not hear those words tomorrow night, and the whole idea, realize we're going to have to contribute to solve our economic crisis, to solve our deficits, but you will not either candidate ask their base to make sacrifices. >> basically, we may hear rder, ing about the board per u.s.-mexico border, but i am certain we will not hear that is more ed than a billion dollars a day in a legitimate trade and how that helps our economy
now. interviews he has given recently. >> i have been in the public eye economy and the need to get those problems straightened out. commanded the public attention issues? to judge that. what i can say is we need to describe what has happened and what is happening and what we need to do to get this under control, and right now, everybody is dancing around it and ducking as opposed to facing it, and if you have got cancer, the first thing you want to do is face it, right? we have got economic cancer at this point. we have got to fix it. >> that was the case in 1992 when you ran your first presidential campaign, and it was still the case when you ran your second in 1996. there was progress after that. a lot of people say that because of the campaigns you ran, we had surpluses and fought our way out of this, and now, it is worse than it was 20 years ago. >> exactly. >> how did we lose our way, compared to the late 1990's, when we fought our way out of this debt, to where we have gone from $4 trillion in debt when you were running to at $16 trillion? >> i am glad you mentioned that numb
personally? to clarify the bad economy. he did not get it. nton ate it up. [laughter] >> sitting here as a journalist, i am struck by two things. one, the moderator is doing a lot of interpretation. there seems to be a very genuine moment with a man who i remember as very controlled and calm. really rising to wait a minute. that is an interesting line. you should be the white house. that is a very human moment. does this format show for good or bad these types of things? >> interestingly, i think it is a mitt romney problem today. if someone said you have a number of homes and your wife drives a couple of cadillacs and your money is offshore, how do you feel my pain? i think there will not be this kind of surprise on the rodney's face when this comes at a town hall meeting, but again, any kind of window we get, even into their thought process sees when they are confronted with an articulated left-field questions really does help us understand who they are. as bill clinton just goes over there and does that i lock on this woman. she is only person in the universe. >> he never asks her,
was not focused on the economy. this is what i've done, this is what i will do. i'm focusedton economy. and i thought from the moment of the debate it was very clear that's what he was all about. and he executed over the last hour and a half. it's sort of the historic norm if you're a democrat in a presidential election, you run to the left and get your nomination and pivot back to the middle and for romney ran unsuccessfully for the nomination. he had been running to the right for four years. and i think it becomes like a conditioned behavior. and i think he was slow making the turn back and heading towards swing voters. and i didn't really see him doing that effectively until his convention speech. and then really really really last night. and last night, it really was the first time this campaign that he struck me like the guy that i saw in 1994 and the guy that ran as governor that he was sort of back close to mitt romney 1.0 as opposed to 2.0 or 3.0 and back to who he is. and i tend to think that people -- when you're not pretending to be somebody else, i think you do a better job. and i
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8